Va. Seeks To Protect Ground Water

Rules On Pesticides Will Affect Farmers

July 28, 1993|By TINA MCCLOUD Daily Press

WILLIAMSBURG — Only one farmer turned out at a meeting Monday night on the state's effort to protect ground water from pesticide contamination, regulations that could affect a farmer's ability to stay in business.

David Hula, who with his family farms about 2,500 acres in Charles City and New Kent counties, predicted that farmers will become more interested as the general regulations are made more specific.

Managing pesticides that have a tendency to seep through soil into ground water will be good for farmers, said Marvin A. Lawson, program manager with the state Office of Pesticide Management. Growers will be able to continue to use the chemicals they need and at the same time protect the water their families drink, he said.

About 540,000 Virginia households depend on ground water from private wells, according to the pesticide management office. In 73 of 95 counties, the majority of households have domestic wells as their only supply. In 38 Virginia counties, municipal and other public water supplies draw exclusively from ground water.

In the spring of 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will name five or six pesticides it believes pose a significant threat to ground water. Within about a year after the list is announced, each state, including Virginia, must have an EPA-approved plan in place to manage use of each chemical or it will be banned.

As a first step toward setting up management plans for each as-yet unnamed pesticide, a task force prepared a general plan that outlines the state's philosophy toward pesticides. The plan says the state will take a ``graduated response'' if a pesticide is found in ground water; action taken will depend on the severity of the problem.

Members of the task force included representatives of about a dozen state agencies, environmental interests, public waterworks employees and farmers.

At the meeting Monday, Hula asked how the regulations would be designed. He said he is active in many farming organizations and helped write some of the agriculture rules for the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.

Hula cautioned that the state is in danger of producing conflicting goals for farmers to meet. For instance, the state encourages a planting method called no-till, which disturbs less soil and discourages runoff of sediment.

But that method requires chemicals to kill remaining vegetation, he said. He wondered if a new pesticide plan would mesh with soil conservation plans.

Lawson said he hoped the state will move toward a total resource plan, which would incorporate all the techniques farmers use in conservation.

Hula also wondered if some pesticides would be banned due to public outcry rather than science. Some farmers blamed the banning of a pesticide called Furadan on publicity, he said.

Furadan, used on corn and other crops, was linked to the deaths of hundreds of birds and at least three bald eagles in Virginia. In the spring of 1991 the state pesticide board imposed a monitoring plan in lieu of a ban. After more birds died that spring, the state banned the product.

Lawson said the state would continue to evaluate scientific findings as well as public comment when deciding when to ban a pesticide.

One problem in devising the specific regulations will be that the standards for ground water quality were established in the 1970s, when pesticides were much different, said Lawson.

Twenty years ago, many pesticides stayed in the food chain and the environment for decades. Today's pesticides are shorter-lived and can be used in smaller quantities, he said.

Lawson said the state will forward its general plan to EPA by Oct. 1, then wait for the federal agency to list the pesticides.

The meeting in Williamsburg was the second in the state to discuss the general pesticide management plan.